Re: a comment on =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	3-Mar-06/10:48 AM
I believe if you had anything relevant to say about the question, you'd have said it already, so I'll just state the obvious. The two questions are the same, Program A IS Program C, Program B is Program D. The test was meant to - and did - show that presentation affects people's answers to hypothetical (or real) questions, even questions which, by their mathematical, logical nature, would not seem to be affected. Most subjects answered "A" to question 1 but "D" to question 2. However cannily you think you've answered, you did the same thing.
Re: a comment on =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	2-Mar-06/4:48 PM
Don't be silly.
Re: a comment on =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	2-Mar-06/4:33 PM
And for the second part? C or D?
Re: =, <>, & . . . by Dovina	2-Mar-06/10:39 AM
A new movement in philosophy, called Experimental Philosophy or x-phi, seeks to test so-called fundamental intuitions (ie, "common sense") against real people's intuitions. That is, to remove philosophy from its remove from the real world. For example, it's commonly held that moral responsibility requires free will. If you're forced to kill someone against your will, it's not your fault, right? X-phi researchers decided to test that against real data. They presented the following scenario to two groups: Bill and his wife are flying home from vacation with their friend Frank, who is having an affair with Bill's wife. Bill knows about this. Kidnappers inject Bill with a drug that forces him to obey orders, then tell him to shoot Frank in the head. He does. The first group is told that Bill has long wanted Frank dead, on account of the affair, and grieves very little. The second group is told that Bill hates what he's done. According to traditional philosophy, Bill is not responsible for Frank's death; but in the x-phi study, the first group said that Bill DID deserve the blame for the killing; the second group said he didn't. In another example, UNC-CH students were asked the following questions: If a businessman interested only in profits knowingly harms the environment, should we say he did so intentionally? What if he knowingly HELPS the environment? The students said yes to the first question, no to the second. In another example having to do with intentionality, a man tries to shoot his aunt, misfires, but somehow gets lucky and hits her anyway. Most people say he killed her intentionally, even though he didn't really have the skill to. It's enough that he wanted to. The argument against x-phi is that respondents may be deciding based on the language of the questions, rather than the philosophical principles involved. For example, here's a psychology experiment you can try yourself. 1. Imagine that the US is preparing for the outbreak of an unusual Asian disease, which is expected to kill 600 people. Two alternative programs to combat the disease have been proposed. Assume that the exact scientific estimates of the consequences of the programs are as follows: - If Program A is adopted, 200 people will be saved. - If Program B is adopted, there is 1/3 probability that 600 people will be saved, and 2/3 probability that no people will be saved. Which of the two programs would you favor? 2. In the same Asian-disease scenario as the previous question's, two different programs are proposed: - If Program C is adopted 400 people will die. - If Program D is adopted there is 1/3 probability that nobody will die, and 2/3 probability that 600 people will die. Which of THESE two programs would you favor?
Re: There by Dovina	1-Mar-06/1:17 PM
Maybe you should pick a different "there". Yours sounds like it sucks, but that's no reason to give up on theres in general.
Re: Harp Song of the Prawne Men by -=Dark_Angel=-, P.I.	27-Feb-06/11:28 AM
Do you have something sound and philosophical about the argument 'If I don't kill person X, he will kill me'? The context is, obviously, Arabs. The person I'm arguing with is a loon, so it's not likely to make much of a difference. Hey, thanks bunches! Tenderly, Curious Hopeless Introvert in Alaska
Re: a comment on On Looking Back by Dovina	25-Feb-06/12:14 PM
I once met a gay crippled ponce. He lives in my house for the nonce. He mutters and scowls As he shakes his white jowls But I've still not found out what he wants.
Re: Gaia and Man by Blue Magpie	25-Feb-06/12:02 PM
Whatever your poetic inspiration was, it's never a good idea to write a poem with 7 lines in a row using the same rhyme. You can be as clever as you want, and odds are it's still going to sound bad. And I agree with ecargo, your points are a little overstated. It's nice that you made many of them part of a dialogue, but, to me, it doesn't work. Some tightening, shortening, and ambiguity seem in order. Also, (a minor thing,) the anthology-style line-numbering bothers me.
Re: On Looking Back by Dovina	24-Feb-06/3:04 PM
This so-called limerick doesn't use any "limerick words" at all. :-( -not funny-
Re: a comment on Rambling by terbenaw	24-Feb-06/3:02 PM
Unless what you were trying to do is "sound like Doug Soderstrom, PhD", I'd recommend not trying to do it. http://www.poemranker.com/poem-details.jsp?id=117966
Re: a comment on Nude Falling Down Staircase by zodiac	23-Feb-06/11:26 AM
Well, say context should be self-contained. When I write I find myself ballooning out-of-control out of the situation I've set out to describe. I wrote this as kind of my determination to not do that so much. re "dessert": yes. That's unconscionable. Maybe I should get away from the computer for a bit. It seems to be eating brain cells.
Re: a comment on lost souls by aamir_trichy	22-Feb-06/11:17 PM
It's like this: http://www.poems.com/archdate.htm
Re: a comment on Nude Falling Down Staircase by zodiac	21-Feb-06/11:00 PM
"Do you think the cubist quality of the painting might have subtly influenced the way you wrote this?" Only as far as cubist/futurist/whatever capturing every movement or moment in an event, freeze-frame style. Which I think applies to writing as much as to any other art. "It seems your trying to demystify art." I'd like to mystify the mundane. Seriously. For me at least, that's a side effect of atheism. Part of that I think is the event or poem being free from context, which I what I was trying to say in the end. For me it's metaphor for writing a poem, maybe a poem for a woman. You break your neck and only the dog/reader gets the prize. If that's not clear, though, it's my bad.
Re: a comment on Nude Falling Down Staircase by zodiac	21-Feb-06/4:39 PM
I wanted it to be more about writing/art in general than cubism. Maybe that's what's confusing.
Re: The chestnut by richa	21-Feb-06/3:35 PM
Better.
Re: During the Grace by jahnotis	21-Feb-06/3:34 PM
To be grammatical, "neither" would have to come before "suffered", not before "lights". Alternately, you can say (somewhat archaicly) "neither did the lights suffer, nor did they shine..." (note the tense.) "tarry" should be "tarried". Or the whole thing should be in present tense, one or the other. "realized" in the sense you've got it means, like, "I realized my dreams". That is, "my dreams came into being". I think you mean "recognized the thorn's approach." And you ought to drop "vulnerably" from the next line, since flanks being open MEANS something's vulnerable; and again, "remain" should be past tense. Third stanza: Again, try to keep the tense consistent. By the third and fourth stanzas, the "nor did they shine" lines seem more for rhyme than making sense. That said, the last stanza's the best, although I think, politically speaking, this poem is tripe.
Re: Empty Chronicles by Scarlett	21-Feb-06/3:25 PM
The second stanza's good, minus Minerva.
Re: First Unborn Sun by Been Here Before	21-Feb-06/3:24 PM
I don't understand any of the lines that rhyme with "sight".
Re: lost souls by aamir_trichy	21-Feb-06/3:22 PM
Not bad, but you should know most poetry written in English is not like this.
Re: Eden to Galillee (by Caducus) by Mona Lisa	21-Feb-06/3:20 PM
Looks like Caducus to me.